Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

If you're judging by the state House of Representatives lame-duck output, the greatest threats to the State of Michigan aren't our crumbling roads and bridges, our underfunded school system and our sluggish jobs growth.

Both, after all, are key Democratic constituencies. So it's hard to see the passage of bills aimed specifically at punishing striking union workers and Democratic voters -- legislation that has cleared the state House and is on to the Senate -- as anything other than a cynical ploy to disguise self-interest as good governance.

Both bills have been tabled by the state Senate until the next legislative session, with Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof saying each needs more work. Both are likely to resurface next year.

They shouldn't.

Let's start with voter ID.

Right-wing politicians paint Michigan's election system as wide-open to voter fraud, committed by perpetrators bent on influencing the outcome of elections in favor of Democratic or progressive causes. Because Michigan law doesn't require voters to show identification at the polls -- voters who don't have ID, but whose names appear in the precinct poll book, can sign an affidavit swearing they are who they claim to be; to fraudulently sign such an affidavit is a felony.

And there's no evidence that intentional voter fraud happens with any frequency, or with any impact on the outcome of elections. None of which stops right-wing politicians from claiming otherwise. Mostly, the specter is raised to justify laws that amount to voter suppression in precincts where those most likely to vote for Democratic candidates live.

Like Wayne County.

In the 2016 election, 18,388 ballots were cast statewide by voters who signed affidavits of identification. In other words, voters whose names appeared in their precinct's poll book, but did not have picture ID. Voters willing to sign an affidavit are able to cast a regular ballot. Of those voters, some 39% were in Wayne County, 30% in the City of Detroit -- both Democratic strongholds. An ACLU analysis found there's strong evidence that those most likely to cast ballots after signing an affidavit live in precincts in which most voters are African-American, and are more likely to live in poverty.

House Bills 6066-6068 would require such voters who can't show ID at the polls to cast what's called a provisional ballot, which won't be counted unless the voter returns to show election officials picture ID within 10 days.

It's hard for some folks to understand why showing ID can be an unreasonable hurdle.

For some voters, the cost of state-issued ID is a financial hurdle. For others, who don't have a fixed address, obtaining and maintaining accurate ID is both a financial and practical problem. And for many, it's reminiscent of laws in the Jim Crow south, where burdensome regulations conspired to keep African-Americans from the polls.

Most election law is weighted in favor of access to the ballot, because the right to vote is so important, so essential to American democracy.

Then there's that anti-picketing law, passed -- like the voter ID law -- along party lines.

The bill lowers the standard by which a business can claim a mass picket has negatively affected it, and frees the business from the requirement that it prove harm has been caused by a mass picket -- and the bill's language is so vague that it seems almost any mass picket could qualify. Also targeted are protesters that block a roadway, a tactic sometimes employed by non-union activists.

The new law would allow a court to fine participants in a mass picket $1,000 a day; a union or organization that sponsored or assisted a mass picket would be subject to a $10,000 fine. It's a move clearly designed to limit activists' and unionized workers' -- again, a key Democratic constituency -- right to protest.

Current law allows smaller fines for mass picketing, but some Republican lawmakers say they're not high enough. It's another solution without a problem -- unless the goal is to quash the right to assembly, and allow punitive action against striking workers or civilian protesters.

But this is the kind of product our lame-duck Legislature produces -- ignoring the state's real, pressing needs in favor of an ideologically driven agenda aimed at self-perpetuation.